Talk:Dragon's breath (ammunition)

Firearms Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Range

The article said it was a short range firearm. Logic tells me that for a flame to travel 300 ft, it would be classified as long range-bouncybouncy

The article didn't say 300 feet, it said 30 feet. I would like to see a list of places where the Dragon's Breath is illegal.

When I read the vandalism "Really the only legitimate application for the Dragon's Breath is in the unlikely, albeit plausible scenario of a zombie outbreak." I almost died laughing. It's so good it should almost be left in. Sadena 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well good thing it's immortalized in the talk page now. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manufacturer's homepage reads: An incredible FIREBALL blasts from your shotgun past 100 ft., igniting everything in it's path!! NOT AVAILABLE IN: CALIFORNIA, IOWA, ILLINOIS, FLORIDA, OR MASSACHUSETTES see: [1] Heinrich k (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to Shotgun?

I've heard some people say that Dragons's Breath shells damage the shotgun barrel. And then I have heard people say that the flamethrower rounds do not damage the barrel. So I've heard conflicting stories. Can anyone shed some light on this? We could also include this in the article. --SkinnyZan 05:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any round whose purpose is to ignite into flames is going to foul the barrel worse than normal rounds. While it's not truly damaging, it's going to make it extremely dirty, which may lead problems trying to fire normal rounds. EvilCouch 13:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical use

Let me clear something up. This shotgun shell is a toy for big kids. No one's going to take these things into a combat situation. The flame's not hot enough nor does it burn long enough to cause serious burns. If someone got shot on bare skin with it, it'd look like a bad sunburn. As far as scaring someone goes, a burst of flame is not going to scare most trained soldiers, unless it's directed at them. And if you're pointing a weapon at a soldier and your shot has no chance in hell of killing or incapacitating them, you are a complete failure as a tactician.

Again, these are not fighting rounds. These are toys. They have no tactical uses. They look pretty and that's about it. They're overly elaborate fireworks. EvilCouch 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard some Police forces use them to control riots, and really if you saw a blast of fire coming at you, you would take cover no matter the temperature. There for it does have a tactical use --Climax Void 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Speaking as someone who's actually been in firefights, I can tell you that you're wrong. If you're in a tactical situation and you see a burst of flame come from a weapon pointed in your direction, the instinct is to return fire. Someone trying to use Dragon's Breath rounds in a fire fight would be committing suicide. I'm pretty skeptical about police using them for riot control, as well. Can you imagine what that would look like if it was televised? Unless you're talking about riot cops in some totalitarian dictator state using them, I'm fairly certain you're full of it. Cops trying that in any 1st world country would be eaten alive by the media. EvilCouch 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in third world countries, eaten alive by fuming zombies with really badly singed eyebrows. Mr. Romero, there's a scene here we really need to see. S B H arris 00:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn’t shield your eyes or ovoid the flames your immediate reaction would be to shoot through the fire shoot it out in fact, speaking of which have you ever been attacked by Fire as in flames ? --Climax Void 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flame lasts about a second. It's a distraction at best. If you point a weapon at a soldier and it does not kill or disable them, you're going to die. I've already stated this several times. You need to understand this concept. This round is about as dangerous as a throwing a lit fireworks sparkler at someone. Yeah, there's the potential for minor burns and it will negatively effect vision, but it's not bright enough to be used as a flashbang. It's going to attract a lot of attention and subsequently a lot of bullets. Dragon's Breath rounds are absolutely useless in a fight. The only thing they're going to do is get you killed. EvilCouch 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then --Climax Void 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible to use this round to give somebody wearing NVGs a real eyeful of pain? 218.111.216.19 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The eyepieces in NVGs do not have the brightness needed to do any damage to the user. EvilCouch 02:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, why is everyone assuming "tactical" = "anti-personnel" ? Think Vietnam... what about setting fire to forests or thatched-roofed huts? Moral issues aside, it's easy to see how convenient it would be to keep around a few special shotgun shells on the off chance you want to burn things (assuming you already have a tactical shotgun for other purposes) than it would be to lug around an actual flamethrower.

Given the short duration of the flames, perhaps these things aren't the most effective firestarters in the world, but they're relatively safe and easy to transport and I believe I've heard about firefighters using them to start backfires. --Lode Runner 23:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying a lighter would probably be much more efficient. In any given infantry platoon, you'd be hard pressed to not find at least one smoker. Hell, even if you find a group of soldiers that want to burn something and can't come up with any lighters, matches have been standard issue in US military rations for decades. I can't speak for other nations' militaries, but I'd be surprised if many of them didn't do similarly. At any rate, I don't think Dragon's Breath shells were ever designed with any intention other than looking cool. EvilCouch 05:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever been camping? Ever tried to start a fire using a lighter (or matches), without store-bought kindling, charcoal, or lighter fluid? I have, and if you're LUCKY it generally takes around 20-30 minutes (sometimes much longer, if it's rained at all in the past week and/or if there's a lot of wind.) The article states that the line of fire created by the Dragon's Breath shell reaches up to 30 feet. A 30' plume of fire is significantly more effective than a lighter. Given a large amount of reasonably dry material (e.g. brush), a dozen or two shells could give you a fearsome blaze in two minutes... an untended lighter-started fire (yes, you could feed it and baby-sit it but as I've said that's hugely time-consuming) would take a long time to reach the same level and it might even go out before then. You always hear about the "carelessly discarded cigarette" starting forest fires, but any camper will tell you that kind of thing is only possible in very dry conditions plus a lot of luck. Without special kindling ("fat lighter") or chemicals, it's actually pretty damn hard to get a self-sustaining fire going.

There's another aspect (other than volume) of the 30' range to be considered. Imagine a dry, old tree so high that it doesn't have any branches below, say, 15'. What do you think would be easier... building a fire around the base and trying to set the trunk on fire or igniting the smaller branches and leaves at the top and walking away?

As I said, I believe forest rangers/firefighters have used these in the past (yes, I'm sure they have more efficient, specialized tools) to start backfires. If this is true (I'm still hunting for a source) then I don't think it's fair to say that they don't have any tactical uses--perhaps "no hunting or self-defense uses" or "no anti-personnel uses" instead. --Lode Runner 20:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're really reaching, man. If you think about something long enough, anything can have a tactical use. The fact that no one uses these shells in combat is a really good indication as to how people really think about these things. These shells were designed by people for use as entertainment. You know what the US Army issues in cases where they need to burn brush quickly? Diesel. Been there. Done that. It works fast, you don't have to foul up a shotgun to do it and virtually every unit has access to a spare 5 gallon can of it as opposed to having to waste several dollars per shell. EvilCouch 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent danger

That last line currently states: "Dragon's breath rounds are banned in many locations due to their inherent danger."
Did someone logically conclude that? All firearms are inherently dangerous, but what specifically makes dragon's breath rounds illegal in some jurisdictions? And where is it considered illegal...city ordinances or state-wide bans? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume because they're fire hazards. It's relatively difficult to set a range on fire with pellets, slugs or ball ammunition, but pyrotechnic shells would stand a pretty decent chance of catching paper targets and/or dry grass on fire. Mind you, that's just my take on it; I don't have any actual law books to back me up on that theory. EvilCouch 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess it should be changed to "due to their inherent fire hazard"? I'll make the edit, but feel free to fix it. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. EvilCouch 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermite version

I have been told of a version of a dragonbreath round where the shell was filled with thermite. Of course, the amount of heat would ruin the shotgun barrells very quickly. Not to mention that it would be illegal almost anywhere. Does anyone has any other info? - Skysmith 10:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely skeptical of such a round ever existing. Thermite has a relatively high ignition point, ~1,000F, whereas gunpowder burns ~600F. It's not impossible to include a booster charge to make ignition possible, but there's a very fine gray area between being able to ignite it and push it out the barrel before it warps or completely slags the barrel and just throwing everything out the barrel without the ignition taking place.

In short, I call bullshit on whomever told you that. EvilCouch 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thank you - Skysmith 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

40mm?

Would it in theory be possible to manufacture a 40mm Dragon's Breath shell to use in a M-79 LAW? Would that have any tactical uses or would it be just as useless as the regular one? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.44.145 (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing two different weapons. The M72 LAW is a 66mm single-use rocket launcher. The M79 grenade launcher is a 40mm grenade launcher. At any rate, it's theoretically possible to create such a round. The ability to create a burst of flame is still of dubious value on the battlefield, though. As a general rule of combat, if you're pointing a weapon at someone and you squeeze the trigger and your target isn't incapacitated, it was probably a waste. EvilCouch 07:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]